# fluid? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 10, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332 "2005-11-10T02:58:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/1 "2005-11-10T02:58:57Z")
While I agree that multiple Bush bashing threads from the same poster is tedious and often subject to intervention, and there was the “Reeder rule” (for him, specifically, IIRC), I don’t see your justification for closing [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=344029)/ Yes the poster is the author of 3 threads on the first page of the Pit. The one you closed, another NON BUsh thread and a long running thread on Bush (opened 11/4). But iI’ve never seen it happen before that a single poster is prohibited from having 3 theads on the front page before. For example, I’m quite certain that **Sampiro** has had a number of threads open on first page before. so, new rule? what? ---
**Author:** ![Rhubarb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/59ef9b/32.png) [@Rhubarb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhubarb)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/2 "2005-11-10T04:01:22Z")
OKay, I’m not much of a “me, too” kinda guy, and I’ve never made a post questioning a mod’s actions before, but I was also puzzled as to this post being closed so quickly. The stated reason for locking the thread doesn’t seem sufficient per se. After all, the Pit only has ONE page. ALL of the posts are on the front page. And as **wring** pointed out, only one of the others was about Bush (Cheney, actually), and that one’s a week old. Is **Lonesome Loser** supposed to hijack his own thread about the administration’s policy on torture with a discussion of the administration’s financial policies? The topics don’t seem that closely related IMO. Color me 😕 . ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/3 "2005-11-10T04:07:27Z")
With all the things that piss people off enough to post a thread, I just don’t see why it’s a bad idea to seperate them into political rants, and all the other stuff. Pit room 1: Politics Pit room 2: Everything else. Of course, seeing as it makes sense to me I’m sure it will never fly. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/4 "2005-11-10T04:38:04Z")
and your comment addresses my point, how? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/5 "2005-11-10T04:45:47Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Yes the poster is the author of 3 threads on the first page of the Pit. The one you closed, another NON BUsh thread and a long running thread on Bush (opened 11/4). As I said in another thread, there was in fact a third admin-bashing thread on the first page when the locked thread was closed. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/6 "2005-11-10T04:53:07Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > As I said in another thread, there was in fact a third admin-bashing thread on the first page when the locked thread was closed. try again. I checked "last twodays’ ( which is not ‘first page\_’) and the last post in a prior thread was five hours before \*\* fluid’s\*\* post. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/7 "2005-11-10T12:54:09Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > As I said in another thread, there was in fact a third admin-bashing thread on the first page when the locked thread was closed. Correct: [Our freedom is on it’s last legs.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343539) [The Bush administration has borrowed more money than the 42 before him combined.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=344029) [Cheney practically begs to be allowed to torture.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343270) As I said, I understand the user has a lot to say, but 3 front-page threads espousing his political views in the Pit is more than enough. If there was a really strong reason for it, I’d understand, but there’s nothing wrong with posting a more general thread for all of these thoughts. No warning was issued because the user is a guest and I did find it a rather minor infraction, I simply wanted to let him know. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/8 "2005-11-10T14:52:05Z")
> [@wring](#): > > try again. I checked "last twodays’ ( which is not ‘first page\_’) and the last post in a prior thread was five hours before \*\* fluid’s\*\* post. Sorry, as f **fluid** says, you are wrong. All three threads had been on the first page at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/9 "2005-11-10T16:24:56Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > Correct: > > [Our freedom is on it’s last legs.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343539) > [The Bush administration has borrowed more money than the 42 before him combined.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=344029) > [Cheney practically begs to be allowed to torture.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343270) > > As I said, I understand the user has a lot to say, but 3 front-page threads espousing his political views in the Pit is more than enough. If there was a really strong reason for it, I’d understand, but there’s nothing wrong with posting a more general thread for all of these thoughts. No warning was issued because the user is a guest and I did find it a rather minor infraction, I simply wanted to let him know. Time date stamp in the “freedom legs” thread has last post on 11/8 at 5:13 pm. Opening post in “Bush/money” thread has time date of "yesterday (ie 11.9) 10:24 pm, which as I noted before is some 5 hours later more than 24. Threads stay on for 24 hours on first page. Plus where the fuck is the written rule that any poster (let alone a newbie) would be aware of the “no more than x number of threads on first page per poster”? as I noted (again), I’ve seen multiple threads by various posters before. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/10 "2005-11-10T16:46:01Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > No warning was issued because the user is a guest and I did find it a rather minor infraction So would I or another member get a warning :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/11 "2005-11-10T17:18:22Z")
I agree with **wring** , this was a stupid fucking call. The three post rule was reader specific. It was meant to address what the Mods felt was a long standing problem. With the problems stemming from the current administration it is completely resonable to see three threads (Katrina, Libby, Chenny, Iraq, Afganistan, Intelligent Design, Corporate Scandal, Supreme Court, Croneyism (SP?) to name just a few) by the same poster. If fluid is now applying a special rule that was applied to a specific poster I think a general announcement is in order. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/12 "2005-11-10T17:33:14Z")
> [@yojimbo](#): > > So would I or another member get a warning :dubious: No. As a general rule, we don’t warn people for starting multiple threads on the same topic or in the wrong forum. Only if a poster appears to be deliberately ignoring the informal guidelines for starting threads will we intervene more…officially. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/13 "2005-11-10T17:39:04Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > No. As a general rule, we don’t warn people for starting multiple threads on the same topic or in the wrong forum. Only if a poster appears to be deliberately ignoring the informal guidelines for starting threads will we intervene more…officially. So is the reader specific rule now one of general applicability? IIRC the rule was menat to address the percieved problem of multiple drive by swipes on a near daily basis at Bush that contained a few words and a link to something that supposedly showed Bush to be a slime ball. What about people who have multiple topics of general interest to discuss but do not rise to the level of readers alleged transgressions? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/14 "2005-11-10T17:51:00Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > So is the reader specific rule now one of general applicability? **reeder** , damnit, not **reader**. I’m finding some of the names in this thread slamming a mod for closing a thread quite interesting. It’s like deja vu all over again. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/15 "2005-11-10T18:03:36Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > So is the reader specific rule now one of general applicability? IIRC the rule was menat to address the percieved problem of multiple drive by swipes on a near daily basis at Bush that contained a few words and a link to something that supposedly showed Bush to be a slime ball. What about people who have multiple topics of general interest to discuss but do not rise to the level of readers alleged transgressions? No, **Reeder** was indeed a special case (in more ways than one). The “only one thread on the front page at a time” rule was specific to him, and does not apply to other posters. Beyond that, there’s not a quantitative rule about multiple threads. We mods try to sort threads into the appropriate forums and keep individual posters from dominating any given forum through sheer numbers, but it does depend on the situation. It’s like pruning a bonsai tree, except sometimes the branches regrow and call you an asswipe. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![milquetoast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/258eb7/32.png) [@milquetoast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milquetoast)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/16 "2005-11-10T18:14:18Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Threads stay on for 24 hours on first page. Where did you get this idea? Threads stay on the front page until they are knocked off by enough more-recent threads. As of this posting, the last thread on the bottom of the PIT page (at the default of 50 threads per page) is 52 hours old. If enough people post to enough different threads within the next hour (and no one post to this one again), this one could be on page 3 an hour from now. Though I doubt people will post to 100 other thread within the next hour, it’s theoretically (and systematically) possible. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Silver\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_Fire)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/17 "2005-11-10T18:31:08Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > I’m finding some of the names in this thread slamming a mod for closing a thread quite interesting. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Alma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@Alma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alma)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/18 "2005-11-10T19:07:20Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > I’m finding some of the names in this thread slamming a mod for closing a thread quite interesting. It’s like deja vu all over again. Would it be less odd for you to hear from someone who’s never criticized mod action before? I think the closing was the wrong move as well, and further evidence of recent heavy-handed modding. I’m willing to wait out the current mood under the assumption that this is what happens with moderator changeover or with a shift in focus, but if there are suddenly new rules based on past poster’s actions, I would like to be made aware of that _before_ closures happen or penalties are enforced. ---
**Author:** ![Alma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@Alma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alma)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/19 "2005-11-10T19:13:05Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > I’m finding some of the names in this thread slamming a mod for closing a thread quite interesting. It’s like deja vu all over again. Oh, and I also don’t see any of this so-called “slamming” of a mod. It seems like a pretty rational discussion to me. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332/20 "2005-11-10T19:17:30Z")
> [@Alma](#): > > Would it be less odd for you to hear from someone who’s never criticized mod action before? My implication was that if this was a tremendous concern for the board at large, more than the same small group of people would be showing up to complain. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluid/330332.md?page=2)